Effect of Sport Education in University Required PE on Students' Perceived Physical Literacy and Physical Activity Level

The accelerometers (Actigraph GT3X+) will be used in this study to measure the dynamic range from -6 to +6 with 3 axes and 3mg/ LSB of sensitivity. A sub-sample of 64 participants was randomly selected to wear accelerometers to measure their objective physical activity levels for at least 8 hours per day, in 7 consecutive days (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA). The data will be uploaded onto the computer and analyzed by ActiLife 6 software. Only 47 of their data were analyzed because the participants met the eligibility of wearing at least 8 hours per day in at least 5 days. Participants' objective physical activity levels will be categorized as sedentary, light, moderate or vigorous. Accordingly, metabolic equivalents were calculated automatically in its software that a higher value represents a better outcome.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Objective Physical Activity Levels at the 10th lesson (11th week) and Follow-up at the 13th lesson (15th week)

The globally standardized and validated International Physical Activity Questionnaire - short form was used to measure self-reported physical activity levels. Four generic items of vigorous, moderate, walking and sitting were included to obtain the physical activity levels from the participants. Example items included: During the last 7 days, on how many days did you do vigorous physical activities like heavy lifting, digging, aerobics, or fast bicycling (vigorous)? They are required to answer the total duration of different types of physical activity which was at least 10 uninterrupted minutes in the last 7 days. The following values continue to be used for the analysis: Walking = 3.3 METs, Moderate PA = 4.0 METs and Vigorous PA = 8.0 METs. The metabolic equivalent minutes/ week (MET-minutes/week) was calculated by this formula: 8 \* vigorous-intensity activity minutes \* days + 4 \* moderate-intensity activity minutes \* days + 3.3 \* walking-intensity activity minutes \* days.

Time frame: Change from Baseline Self-report Physical Activity Levels at the 10th lesson (11th week) and Follow-up at the 13th lesson (15th week)

The Fitness instruction time was measured using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT; McKenzie et al., 1992) which is a validated and reliable momentary time sampling and interval observation instrument to gather quantitative data for assessing physical activity during PE lessons. SOFIT includes three intensities of students' physical activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behavior. Each category is coded using interval coding every 20 seconds (10 seconds observe; 10 seconds record) throughout the lesson. The observer decides on what is occurring at the moment an observation interval ends. Physical activity level, lesson content, and teacher behavior were measured as a percentage of physical education lesson time. Each outcome measure was then measured by averaging the percentage of physical education lesson time across the first to the tenth lesson.

Time frame: The 1st lesson (Baseline) to the 10th lesson (11th week)

The 34-item Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Climate Questionnaire in Physical Education was based on achievement goal theory and self-determination theory to assess students' perception of the motivational climate of empowering and disempowering features created by their physical education teachers. Participants responded to the instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The total subscale score range was 17 - 85 that higher values represent a better outcome in the empowering subscale and vice versa for the disempowering. Milton et al. (2018) clarified the questionnaire is internally consistent (α = 0.82 - 0.91) and factorial and construct validity. The empowering and disempowering scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.

Time frame: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)

The Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument is a 9-item instrument which is used to measure both teachers' and adolescents' perceived physical literacy. Participants responded to the instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The total subscale score range was 3 - 15 that higher values represent a better outcome for all subscales. Example statements include: (a) I am physically fit, in accordance with my age (sense of self and self-confidence); (b) I have strong social skills (self-expression and communication with others); (c) I am aware of the benefits of sports related to health (knowledge and understanding). The scale scores are reliable with the internal consistency from .73 to .76. The scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.

Time frame: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)

The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale is designed to measure how much a student enjoys participating in physical activity. Participants responded to the 16-items instrument on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree a lot and 5 = agree a lot). The total subscale score range was 9 - 45 for positive and 7 - 35 for negative that higher values represent a better outcome in the positive subscale and vice versa for the negative. There are nine positive items such as I find it pleasurable, It gives me energy and seven negative items such as I dislike it, It is not fun at all. Participants receive high scores on positive items and low scores on negative items would indicate a high enjoyment of physical activity. Motl et al. (2001) established adequate internal consistency (α = 0.81-0.86), and factorial and construct validity. The positive and negative scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.

Time frame: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)

The Situational Motivation Scale was used to measure participants' situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation while performing given physical activities. Participants responded to the instrument on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true and 7 = very true). The total subscale score range was 4 - 28 that higher values represent a better outcome for all subscales. Example items include: (a) this activity is fun (intrinsic motivation); (b) I believe this activity is important for me (identified regulation); (c) I don't have any choice (external regulation); and (d) I do this activity, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it (amotivation). It illustrated that it has adequate internal consistency (α = 0.77-0.95) and construct validity in physical activity settings among college students aged from 18 - 22 years (mean age = 18.9). The motivational spectrum scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.

Time frame: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)